Ministry of Defence could have to cancel programmes to fill £36billion black hole

Defence chiefs could have to cancel whole equipment programmes to fill a £36billion black hole in its budget, an influential group of MPs has given warning.

The Public Accounts Committee said the Ministry of Defence’s funding shortfall could rise to more than £36 billion in the coming decade – many times the official estimate of £6 billion

The MPs had been investigating the department’s governance and budgeting arrangements were fit for purpose.They found that the current defence budget was “fundamentally unaffordable”.
Full Story

No mention of the carriers in the actual report, cheap headline to get attention.

The penalty fees for cancellation would suck up much of the saving, with the price of the UK’s expeditionary capability and whats left of our shipbuilding.

you have said some nations have a different clasification on what gen they call their plane, eg china
Fedaykin, you’re in the uk, raf call it 5th gen so you can stop your carry on
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=1A48D99C-1143-EC82-2ECE0EBDC81C6E6A
JSF will provide the UK with an unrivalled ‘fifth-generation’ tactical air system, designed with stealth characteristics and advanced sensors, and will afford the UK a ‘step change’ in capability

Two things:

1)Don’t patronise me its demeaning!

2)Its a press release!

I give up, if you don’t understand whats the point wearing out my keyboard.

You might consider getting used to it. It’s been used for nearly half a century, I doubt it’s going to change for a few pissed off “enthusiasts”.

MY GOD! You guys would fail a reading comprehension test for a six year old!

Don’t you understand what I am trying to explain?

Its like talking to a brick wall…

I am not denying that around the world the concept of generations has been used.

I am saying that the term generation means different things to different people and organisations making it ill suited for the process of comparison. I also feel that people use the term childishly if it suits what they want to hear.

IT IS NOT SET IN STONE!

UK approves Rivet Joint purchase

The UK has agreed to buy three Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic intelligence aircraft and related ground equipment from the USA, defence secretary Bob Ainsworth has announced.

Confirming the development on 22 March, Ainsworth said the aircraft will deliver a “vital capability for the Royal Air Force to replace the [British Aerospace] Nimrod R1 that will be retired from service in March 2011”.

The UK Ministry of Defence will introduce the Rivet Joints under Project Helix, a long-running effort to upgrade or replace its Nimrod R1 fleet, which was reduced to two airframes in 2009.
Full Story

Interesting, does that mean Helix capabilities integrated onto the RC-135.

If that is the case then there is much to be celebrated, the crews would be able to retain skills on a Gold Plated solution.

The RC-135 is bigger and it ties into the US supply chain for parts, just need to add the refueling probe that the E3D Sentry have and the UK gets a dual refueling capability. You know I really hope that the future Tory government corrects the mistake made with the leased a330 tanker and get a few fitted with the boom as well.

Indeed as Scorpion82 has pointed out that even within an organisation like Lock Mart the goalposts can be moved to suit there own agenda.

So at first to be called 5th Generation you needed things like stealth, supercruise and extreme agility then when the F-35 doesn’t quite meet those capabilities they fudge it and say it is.

A fancy web page from Lock Mart or anybody else for that matter just look at the Dassault Omni Role Brochures – (they love the Omni Role term waxing much lyrical about how it makes the Rafale a step beyond anything else, we would just say its “Swing Role”) doesn’t mean global industry and MOD or Airforce consensus. Or we could go to EADS who make this bold statement on their webpage:

The Eurofighter is currently the most sophisticated high-performance, multi-role combat aircraft of the new generation.

I could just think of the list of people who would disagree with that statement (actually I would be one of them as again I say it over simplifies the matter).

Why does there need to be an official organization to define it? Did someone “officially” christen the boomer generation or Generation X? People take the generation thing FAR too seriously. Does it exist? Sure. Even if you deny it. Does it mean anything? Not really.

Because without that organisation to give us very clear definitions using generations within a forum to make a point is pointless. I think Scorpion82 makes the point very well, there are aircraft that don’t fit into your very loose definition that you very happily define as a particular generation.

As I said I accept that you can label aircraft into generations but I don’t accept it as a useful metric for comparative discussion. My main problem is people like Pfcem coming onto the forum and sayiing that X aircraft is just inferior or superior because it fits into whatever they personally define as a generation ignoring all the different aspects of avionics and weapons.

Because 5th generation fighters have surpassed their favorite 4th/4+ generation fighter(s).

***

Yes he IS wrong. Fighter generations nomenclature has been in used since the 1950’s & there IS a measurable definition of “5th gen” just as there is for every previous generatoins.

1. LM didn’t invent “5th gen” nomenclature, it is just the lead contractor building fighter 5th generation fighters.

2. Supercruise has never been requirements for 5th generation fighters. Supercruise (>Mach 1.5) was specific to the F-22.

***

Then you have not actually read very many before the mid-90’s then. Try a trip to the nearest public library, quite often you will find aviation books written WAY earlier than the mid-90’s that talk about fighter generations.

***

Because those definitions have already been made by those who make them. It is in fact only those who don’t like that their favorite fighter is a ‘legacy’ 4th/4+ generation fighter(s) that try to ‘redefine’ what makes a fighter a 5th generation fighter so as to either exclude a particular aircraft (i.e. the F-35) &/or make it appear that there is not that much difference between 5th generation fighters & their favorite 4th/4+ generation fighter(s).

***

That is not what you posted now is it…

Actually MOST have the SAME concept of the term means.

LOL

And just where has ANYBODY done that?

In many ways I don’t know where to start but anyway…

I think you will find the term “Generations” has been used for millenia for all forms of subjects so I feel more then happy to clarify my issues with its use in determining the capabilities of different aircraft. Indeed I have stated that I accept that the term has been used around the world but I have also stated why I think its a poor way to compare things in this subject. So I decided to benefit my fellow forum members that I should give a better understanding of my reasoning. My argument as I keep on saying is not the exsistance of the concept merely its use in reasoned debate!

You seem to be very clear on the idea that the term is entirely locked in and entirely understood within the area of aerospace engineering to point of catagorically stating that it is all clearly defined…fantastic! Tell me who the organisation or people are that define different types of aircraft with a multitude of systems and I will happily go to there website to read up on it. (Thats sarcasm by the way)…Where is this organisation who clearly define the difference between 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 4.5+, 4.99, 5, 5.Yankee Doodle Doo. Please show us with clear references…I will be an avid reader! I am aware that the Pentagon loosely places different aircraft around the globe into loose generations but I think you will find its only loosely defined, so why should I have to accept it.

Or will it be as I have pointed out that the definition varies where and who you speak too even within an organisation…just take the F22 and the F35 for example. I don’t have a hang up or some kind of protection complex over the Eurocanards but I do feel in the modern world of complex avionics defining something by a generation is oversimplication (thats called a reasoned opinion by the way). Or shall we both try and define it now? but where do we start?

1)We could say when the program started for a particular aircraft.

2)We could define it by the relative development age of the systems.

3)We could say By the general features (Stealth, Super Cruise etc…)

In all cases we will find disagreements and as far as I am aware no consensus.

Also I am curious why when I wrote this statement:

Actually within an airforce the term can be fairly useful when comparing different aircraft purchased over the years for example the RAF would call the MD F4 Phantom as one generation beyond the English Electric Lightning. Or the step between the Mig 23 and the Mig 29 within Russian service, all fine but it falls flat when comparing different manufacturers aircraft globally or what one airforce defines as a generation to another. It really falls flat when the latest aircraft have a fusion of different avionics and weapons which really makes comparing them by a simple generation pointless.

Your answer is merely a glib:

lol

As far as I am aware I wrote a fairly reasoned explanation why the term GENERATION can work under certain circumstances…I’m struggling to find whats funny in the statement or naive…maybe you find the concept of the RAF or Russian Frontal Aviation during the cold war funny and only worth a lol rather then a reasoned reply.

Finally you state that you can’t find anybody who has said that the 5+ what ever generation aircraft is better then another and I think you will find your answer here:

Because 5th generation fighters have surpassed their favorite 4th/4+ generation fighter(s).

You wrote that Mr Pfcem.

Now that did make me go lol

I would have thought you of all people would have been familiar with the concept. The concept of generations has been around for decades, as has what the specifics are that define them. LM marketing didn’t invent it as you seem to think.

You did read my previous post?

I clearly state that the concept of generations exist…within a tight set of circumstances ie within an airforce. I certainly don’t think LM invented the concept but I do have a hunch that you regard what they have to say as the benchmark. I am saying that there are many different benchmarks making the use of generations as a straight comparison between aircraft made in different countries pointless.